none would have been anywhere near as familiar with RFL regulations as the only company charged with interpreting them for the last 8 years.

They are the RFL's legal arm. ALL legal work goes through them (and farrer and co)

Your point misses the fairly obvious problem that ANY sports law firm familiar enough with the RFL's regulations to adjudicate on this matter, would have links with the RFL and other RL clubs. There isnt a firm out there with a department set up, just reading RFL regulations and interpretations without dealing with RL. To gain the experience necessary they would need have dealt in such cases and would always, necessarily have those links.

To ditch your retained legal firm, to pick up another, with existing links to other rival clubs (which is the only other option) would have been far worse.

for example, Chadwick Lawrence have previously worked with WTW and Huddersfield Giants,
Walker Morris senior partner and one in charge of sports law is Chris Caisley former bradford bulls chairman
Farrer & CO also work in conjunction with PinsentMasons for the RFL

I think a firm of lawyers capable of dealing with complex laws and legislation is more than capable of coming to terms with the relatively simple regulations of the RFL.

you can think that, you can also be wrong.

You beat me to that one. I very much doubt that it's beyond the ken of most law firms with any credibility to unravel the relatively simple rules governing RL; and given the serious implications of the outcome and the number of lives and livelihoods affected, it seems reasonable to make the 'independent' panel genuinely independent - if for no other reason than to silence the doubters.

Unless of course the combination of blunders and amateurish scheming that have characterised this whole affair will intentionally be covered up? After all, if you're the RFL's 'legal arm' and rely on that status for a significant fee income, it's not in your interests to expose any inconvenient truths - is it?

Maybe but it's more likely you that's wrong

I think Bren has hit the nail on the head.
The RFLs brand of Independent people are fully aware of how much of sham the game of RL is and how its run, its people arent going to blab.
A truly independent panel would simply run away from the car crash screaming and that wouldn't be good for the administration would it.
I think the whole game would be called into dispute!!

TBH he could just as easily be right.
I dont think its beyond the wit of any practise to work this out.
It comes down to how much the RFL want it to be worked out and equally if they want this to then become public knowledge.

Not likely, well not in his world.

He's only here to stir the pot and push his own agenda.

NEWS FLASH>>>>

News in from reuters that Nigel Wood has just returned back to the UK after his succesfull spell in Syria running the independent elections there.
This comes after his recent foray into the crimea and eastern european political elections....

Spot on. Any law firm which deals with sport specific cases will be more than capable of reading through a governing bodies rules & regulations and apply them to a case, thats exactly what they are paid to do. To try and suggest otherwise is nothing short of laughable. This particular firm should not have been used in this instance, it's as simple as that.

I wonder if the term "independent panel" should be rephrased to an agree arbitration body? It sounds relatively balanced with someone on the panel familiar with the Bulls and one familiar with The RFL.

For an arbitration process to work both sides need to be in agreement that they are happy with the people sat on the panel of judges and willing to accept their judgement. Otherwise I suspect one or the other of the parties would have not gone ahead until they had a panel both agreed with.

With both parties probably hoping for the same outcome I don't think they really need to worry about any conflicting interests.

Telegraph & Argus :- panel have asked for more information to back the appeal so verdict not expected till next week?.

Should have got Judge Judy in, whole thing would have been done and dusted by the 6 O'Clock news.

"Waddya mean you havn't brought a (insert whatever is applicable) where did you think you were coming today ? Judgement for the plaintiff"

A great idea, would love to hear her reduce their case to "Baloney"